Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Moorcroft now chasing!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5413 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone

 

Here we go again!

 

Halifax passed this case on to IQOR so I sent the CCA letter and they replied saying they had passed the request on to their client. That was 14th May. Time up now I believe?

 

No CCA surprise surprise! No £1 refund as yet either!!

 

Today I have received a threatoletter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery dated 30/05/09.

 

Does not specify the account has been sold or assigned to them justthat they have been instructed.

 

What is the next stage please?

 

Do I send them a CCA request and £1 or is there another letter I write to them?

 

Can someone please clarify the next step in this case.

 

T :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them this (edit to suit) and send recorded

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007.

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be

resolved on **DATE**, this obviously hasn’t happened.

As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Excellent, thank you 42man!

 

Lets see what that brings if anything, but I guess they will just ignor everything as usual and churn out the same old rubbish ... perhaps it will be passed back again to B-liar Oliver and Snot?

 

Thanks again

 

T:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon all!

 

More cr@p from Moorcroft!!! :mad:

 

Well, here’s a quick update. Any advice on next step most welcomed!

 

Sent 42man’s recommended letter off last week saying the account is clearly in dispute and should not have been passed from Halifax to them and low and behold it has been ignored in its entirety.

 

Today I have received another bully letter “Notice of intended litigation” from Moorcroft.

 

So are they now breaking OFT rules and debt collection guidance ?

 

What’s my next step?

 

T :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the CCA request has defo been received.

 

It was sent to Iqor with the £1 back in May and they have acknowledged this and confirmed the request had been passed back to the OC and the account was on hold.

 

No CCA received so when the time limit ran out I sent a "you have not complied with the statutory time limits and are now in default" letter.

 

Instead of sending me the CCA Halifax have passed this disputed account onto Moorcr@p so they can send me threats instead! How very thoughtful!

 

 

T :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case send moorcroft the I am bemused letter

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original/DCA** and has been since DATE 2008. Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

As **original/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, Subject Access request and have also breached s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

Also be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing.

Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a “doorstep call”, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you.

There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so, then you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PGH

 

Yup, that's what I did as recommended by 42man .... you'll not be surprised to hear that this is the letter they completely ignored!

 

Do you think it would be worth sending it again referring to my previous letter or do you think the chances are that I would simply be wasting ink, paper and postage?

 

I think you were right the first time, complain to the OFT!

 

 

T :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Afternoon All!

 

Update

 

Guess what … yet more cr@p from Moorcroft. It is becoming somewhere in-between funny and boring!

 

It is very clear they deliberately ignore all debt collection guidance even when it is spoon-fed to them!.

 

Just to recap, since requesting the CCA this case has gone from

 

OC to EOS

EOS to Iqor

Put Iqor in dispute

Iqor passed back to OC

OC passed to Moorc@p

 

Not a CCA in sight.

 

I sent the letter suggested above to Moorc@p (thanks once again to all)

 

In response from Moorcroft received today they say that the previous DCA should have told me that the CCA was unavailable but so what, pay up anyway and we’re going keep pursuing you!!!!

 

The OC is aware that the account is in dispute and should never have passed it to Moorcroft.

 

Is there a letter that says something along the lines this is now classed as serious harassment under the debt collection guidelines and you are fully aware that the account is in dispute and if you persist I shall be claiming damages for harassment plus the more you breach the debt collection guidelines the more evidence this gives me to report you to Trading Standards, the Information Commissioner and the OFT????

 

Oh and PS you may like to have a chat with McKenzie Hall and the OFT about what happens when you breach the guidelines???!!!!!!

 

And also does anyone have something about the OC is responsible for the actions of their appointed DCA’s representing them so by continuing to harass me you are also putting your client at risk of harassment claims????

 

If someone has something handy that you be fab!

 

I now actually quite resent wasting the ink, paper and postage on these people.

 

Alternatively shall I just ignore it completely, wait for oddles more rubbish to come through and then go to the TS, OFT, IC etc etc???

 

T :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just file moorcraps letter along with the rest, and not bother responding, they will soon get the message that it is in dispute due to no agreement and then will throw their teddy out the pram before running back to the OC screaming and wailing that they have been sold a pup

Link to post
Share on other sites

tell them that if they keep hassling you,that you will levy a charge for dealing with their correspondence as recompense for providing their staff with training,and if their letters continue,that you will deem they accept these terms.....

 

(you have to offer a service that they then "accept", apparently)

 

funnily enough,I haven't heard from Morecrap in ages now ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moorcr@p aren't the brightest but they will go through thier threat cycle with you. When each letter comes pick out the breaches to OFT guidlines and the CPUTR 2008 and report these to TS, the OFT and your MP :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange They Must Be Doing A Job Lot As I Got The Letters In The Same Way As You Except Mine Is From Bt. They Still Havent Responded To Me Just Sent The Next "red Top" Letter. Whats The Next Step? They Have Had Three Weeks Nowx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, charge them for staff training – I do like that one! It wouldn’t go a miss and is obviously much needed!!! Haven’t they heard of Train To Gain???? :D

 

I know it’s a bit naughty but I do get the urge sometimes to wind them up a little …. Perhaps send them back my own red top letters regarding their harassment and non-compliance from my own little Pre-Litigations dept! .... plenty of "could " "may" and a list of my charges for responding to their rubbish!

 

I am still convinced this DCA business is run from a garden shed! Perhaps this may explain why they appear to be away with the fairies? The OC has already told them to oh but dream of any CCA let alone a properly executed one :D

 

T :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so right, fuzzybobble has me in stitches! :D

 

I also look out for threads and posts by BRW and Mr Ton, always a beautiful turn of phrase with the correct amount of sarcasm, they always have me laughing! Oh god, not forgetting Mr Fred Bassett!!

 

The first time I came across the Cheekiness to DCA's thread I laughed so much I nearly fell off my chair! I pop back every now and then just for a little update and to ligten the mood!

 

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...